South Korea: The only middle power of its kind • Hacker News Board

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#171

Post by tablespoon » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #143

calmd wrote: post #7

SK is committing demographic suicide though, so whatever you think of its success, it has a pretty fatal disease. It has the lowest birthrate in the world. This is going to cause significant economic problems quite soon, or they will have to open up massive immigration which will completely change the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_birth_rate_in_South_Korea How does the developed world pull out of this ty…

> SK is committing demographic suicide though, so whatever you think of its success, it has a pretty fatal disease. It has the lowest birthrate in the world. Its kind of amazing how often people make judgements based on extrapolating demographic trends over much longer terms than there is any reason to think that they will hold, and then as soon as they fail turn around and do the same thing based on the new demograp…

> OTOH, most of the arguments I’ve seen for it actually being important (in the near term) are the kind where you scratch the surface and underneath is pure racism, so I’m not all that concerned.

Can you go into more detail on that? In some respects "demographic suicide" solved with immigration has many (but not all) of the characteristics of colonization, and I think it's a reasonable speculation that colonized and diminished cultures would be unhappy with more than just the coercive aspects of their colonization, and that a non-racist person could have reasonable anxieties about their culture becoming diminished and dying out in the future. Though I suppose racists probably see an opportunity to exploit those anxieties to spread their racist ideology.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#172

Post by vkou » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

jerkstate wrote: post #109

nerdponx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very much looking forward to a lower-birthrate future in which fewer people live better and more sustainably. The problem is in the short/medium term, figuring out how to pay for all these checks that politicians have been writing over the last 50 years. The problem isn't that "the young" have to support "the old", it's that a lot of promises were made on the assumption of indefinite growth.

So strange to me that when UBI is discussed, pervasive automation is right around the corner to pay for it, but when birth rate decline is discussed, the only solution on the table is open borders. I wonder why that could be?

> but when birth rate decline is discussed, the only solution on the table is open borders. I wonder why that could be?

Because people saying that are doing accounting with money, not productivity.

People need three things to live in retirement. Food, water, shelter[1], and some degree of medical care. We are not in a demographic collapse situation where society cannot be productive enough to fail to provide the first three to the retired. The latter is the only thing in danger of seeing some cuts.

[1] Housing isn't expensive because building four walls and a roof is expensive. Housing is expensive because there's no upward bound on the cost of a square foot of land in a city.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#173

Post by vkou » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 4:50 PM UTC

namarie wrote: post #118

atom_arranger wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random idea: What if the votes of each age group were weighted to account for the size of that group, e.g. making the votes of 18-20 have the same weight as the votes of 40-42, even if there may be more people in the 40-42 group. This would prevent an aging population from giving too many benefits to older age groups, and would encourage policies that consider long term impacts more.

> What if the votes of each age group were weighted Because the principle of "one person, one vote" is widely (and correctly IMO) accepted.

One person, one vote is proportional representation, which is not widely practiced.

What is actually practiced is 'One collection of zip codes, one vote.'

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#174

Post by davidjytang » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 4:50 PM UTC

eatonphil wrote: post #2

My wife is South Korean so I'm biased. But I've been to Japan and South Korea and if you're looking for one of the most modern nations in the world, I strongly recommend you go to Korea. The only comparable country I've been to is the Netherlands or maybe Denmark. In contrast, the US and Japan seem to be somewhat falling apart with a peak in infrastructure and buildings a few decades ago. It's not that bad of course…

China and Taiwan had been compared a lot. China's cities look much newer than Taiwan cities. But people's general way of carrying themselves differs a lot. Technological advances also varies.

If your "modern country" means "modern buildings", then I can agree. But if you're saying people, culture, art, technology of South Korea is more "modern" than other countries, I would disagree.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#175

Post by cyberlurker » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 4:50 PM UTC

devchix wrote: post #147

> South Korea’s rise to a middle power status comes without much historical baggage The kingdom of Joseon was annexed entirely by Japan in 1905. Modern Korea (nevermind the North/South prefix) would not exist had the US not enter WWII. The 35-years under Japan is a major flashpoint in Japan-Korea relation, it's a joke that the thing that unites North and South is their common hatred of Japan. I'm surprised there's no…

I’m sure the US military presence and support plays a big part in keeping the lid on major conflict between South Korea and Japan. There is significant historical baggage from Japan colonizing Korea.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#176

Post by benrbray » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

atom_arranger wrote: post #112

thow-01187 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, low fertility rate is not a one-time problem of boomer generation followed by a stable plateau. It leads to a perpetual spiral of gerontocracy, high dependency ratios, under-investments and general vitality being sapped out of the populace. It's no coincidence that Italy and Japan, once vigorous and creative, are not exactly bursting with enthusiasm in the past ~20-30 years

Random idea: What if the votes of each age group were weighted to account for the size of that group, e.g. making the votes of 18-20 have the same weight as the votes of 40-42, even if there may be more people in the 40-42 group. This would prevent an aging population from giving too many benefits to older age groups, and would encourage policies that consider long term impacts more.

You don't need to weight the groups, since everyone experiences all ages (not counting early death).

My proposal is: Multiply the number of house reps and senators by ten (for instance). Each representative now represents a district / state as well as a decade of life (for instance). When voting for an age-graded role, your vote only counts towards the decade of life that you're currently in. You can only run for a position that matches your age range.

This would have a number of advantages: Disrupt two-party dynamics. Increase granularity of representation. It's harder for older folks to take younger folks hostage. Younger folks will feel more enthusiastic about voting for someone who actually represents them.

Probably, you'd want to fiddle with the numbers based on age demographics. 7-year intervals is probably the right number, with a big bucket for people over a certain age. (So, 18, 25, 32, 39, 46, 53, 60, 67, 74+) might be right.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#177

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

atom_arranger wrote: post #112

thow-01187 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, low fertility rate is not a one-time problem of boomer generation followed by a stable plateau. It leads to a perpetual spiral of gerontocracy, high dependency ratios, under-investments and general vitality being sapped out of the populace. It's no coincidence that Italy and Japan, once vigorous and creative, are not exactly bursting with enthusiasm in the past ~20-30 years

Random idea: What if the votes of each age group were weighted to account for the size of that group, e.g. making the votes of 18-20 have the same weight as the votes of 40-42, even if there may be more people in the 40-42 group. This would prevent an aging population from giving too many benefits to older age groups, and would encourage policies that consider long term impacts more.

[deleted]

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#178

Post by slothtrop » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #135

csomar wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Immigration has become an issue lately because a human (or a bare-human) is worth much less. 1.000 years ago a bare illiterate human had some considerable value. He could work in the field or he could fight. More humans, more food and production. More humans, more manpower to fight your enemies. Now a bare semi-educated human is a liability. Which is why most countries are refusing their entrance. Times h…

There's only so much juice you can squeeze out of a shrinking workforce, though. And as retirees continue to make up a larger portion of the popular vote - they'll continue to demand more from a shrinking workforce. At some point (I imagine in my lifetime) - the straw will break the camel's back.

Automation is progressing faster than new 'types' of jobs are created. In many sectors they'll be poised to be oversaturated with workers. Owners are happy to remove the human element wherever reasonably possible.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#179

Post by cyberlurker » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

vjdingdong wrote: post #166

German unification was unthinkable until the soviet union collapsed. Maybe in 25 years, the 2 Koreas will be reunited, making Korea an even bigger power on the global stage.

A nice sentiment but seems less likely every year that goes by. The South doesn’t even really want the North because it would be an economic burden. Or so I’ve read.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#180

Post by slothtrop » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

jerkstate wrote: post #109

nerdponx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very much looking forward to a lower-birthrate future in which fewer people live better and more sustainably. The problem is in the short/medium term, figuring out how to pay for all these checks that politicians have been writing over the last 50 years. The problem isn't that "the young" have to support "the old", it's that a lot of promises were made on the assumption of indefinite growth.

So strange to me that when UBI is discussed, pervasive automation is right around the corner to pay for it, but when birth rate decline is discussed, the only solution on the table is open borders. I wonder why that could be?

There's complete cognitive dissonance and confusion at the moment over popular notions of national prosperity. On one hand people readily agree that the GDP is an inaccurate measure of prosperity, that wealth gained mostly goes to the top and it ought not be a prime focus, while at the same time suggest that high rates of immigration are crucial to prop up said GDP. Many countries with stagnant birthrates are rather enviable places to live, i.e. Iceland, Japan, SK. Besides a large aging population to support for a generation in some cases, I don't see the problem.